What Can We Do About Drones?!?

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

Having spent a great deal of time and effort researching the matter ( 5 minutes on Google) I have the following to contribute.

From a legal perspective given that the abuse by drone is new because the technology itself is new. However the act of using a camera to take unsolicited pictures is not new to the law with a number of laws that could be enforced in order to protect the victims.

Criminal voyeurism statute of some states cover "a place where [one] would have a reasonable expectation of privacy", meaning:

A place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another; or

A place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.

Given the similarity to voyeurism, a jury might find that using a camera on a drone in an otherwise considered private location may amount to the torts of outrage or negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Intruding upon another's solitude or private affairs, physically or otherwise, is subject to liability if this intrusion would be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person. This type of invasion of privacy is commonly associated with "peeping Toms," someone illegally intercepting private phone calls, or snooping through someone's private records. While taking photographs of someone in public would not count, using a long range camera to take photographs of someone inside his or her home would qualify. This raises the question of being photographed on board your private boat. Does a boat have the same legal protection of a home. In most cases I would think so.

The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. The underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. If one fails in this duty and unreasonably causes emotional distress to another person, that actor will be liable for monetary damages to the injured individual. The tort is to be contrasted with intentional infliction of emotional distress in that there is no need to prove intent to inflict distress. That is, an accidental infliction, if negligent, is sufficient to support a cause of action.

Creating a public nuisance is a crime. This also may be used.

My thoughts are that the use of "Peeping Tom" laws are the best for snaring the invasive drone operator. It could be successfully argued that your boat being your home has just as much expectation of privacy against being peeped on in your home in the suburbs. In fact one could consider that you chose living onboard a boat so as to have even a greater expectation of privacy than living in a home on land with neighbors on three sides of your home.

Anchoring your boat in the middle of a non throughway waterway by itself is placing yourself in a place of great privacy that is violated by uninvited peeping by way of drone.

Taking legal action or getting the local police to charge the person is in reality an uphill battle. On balance the cheapest way out would be to buy a radio signal jamming device and bring that little sucker crashing to the ground.

The problem with the picture taking being a violation there is no proof of picture taking as understand the OP

[Sailor_Hutch]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I'd be surprised if the jammer worked, the one that was linked to I didn't see anything that transmitted at 2.4 Ghz.
I also doubt that it is sophisticated enough to fly home on its own, I believe that is beyond the average hobby "drone"?

The drones I know about can be set to fly home on their own if the signal is interrupted. So, a jammer would just send it home, I think, unless it misinterpreted the "jam" signal as "dive." I think they have authorization built-ins against that tho.

Note that i'M NOT in favor of jamming - on the basis of the (perhaps low) possibility that the craft could become a dangerous, uncontrolled object.

[Steadman Uhlich]

The jammer site I saw mentions that some jammer type devices send some malware to the drone via wifi, which overrides the Return To Base instructions, and causes the drone to drop like a stone.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

And maybe 2hullvenus is an energy sink, someone who really wants some attention, rather than a solution to the problem... Ten pages now, a number of non-warlike solutions offered, no mention of taking up any of them....

Seems to me that if my anchorage became unpleasant to me for some reason, I'd move. Why did he not do that? according to his post, there is anchorage nearby.

Ann

Ann,

I for one can see where you are coming from. I do think some suggestions are sophomoric ( maybe if I were 12 again) but many I think are in jest.

Being such a new toy the laws are somewhat non existent. The warlike, as you put it, are likely to put him on the wrong side of laws that do exist not drone specific.

[Captain Bill]

If you have an SSB or HAM radio on board, keying the transmitter at high power might fry the electronics if the thing is close enough. Those receivers are sized to deal with microwatts of radio energy. Dumping milliwatts into the circuit might scramble them.

[GrahamHO]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I'd be surprised if the jammer worked, the one that was linked to I didn't see anything that transmitted at 2.4 Ghz.
I also doubt that it is sophisticated enough to fly home on its own, I believe that is beyond the average hobby "drone"?

They do fly home, for example if they lose the operating signal. Then they go directly home and can possibly hit any hill or building that may have caused the loss of signal.
There was a much publicised TV news clip where someone was demonstrating in a TV studio how safe a drone is. Unfortunately all the stray signals in the studio upset the drone and it crashed into a camera.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Steady Hand

The jammer site I saw mentions that some jammer type devices send some malware to the drone via wifi, which overrides the Return To Base instructions, and causes the drone to drop like a stone.

You know I think most of those sites are just pure snake oil, Some drones may have wifi, but I doubt very much due to short range of Wifi it's used for flight controls. Bet it's for the camera.

I've worked a little with RPV's and can tell you the whole pure autonomous flight thing like a come home command ain't that simple, GPS just isn't that accurate in altitude for example. Ones I worked with to manage autonomous flight had dual ring laser gyro INU's, a digital map and a Radar altimeter.

As far a shooting it down with a SSB, that might work, I would think they are sufficiently hardened, but lots of advanced aircraft have to avoid HIRTA areas. (High Intensity Radio Transmission Area's) or their on board electronics go wacko
Funny I found this on the net, it's supposedly classified
http://www.usarmyaviation.com/studyg...er...HIRTA.ppt

[Kentb]

I can see this playing out like a warner brothers cartoon. Shoot that drone down and a week later a new one shows up with cargo capacity to drop a flaming bag of poo on your deck. Be careful what you instigate.
I think the idea about shooting from the darkened inside of the boat sounds good. Don't want to be seen on camera doing destruction to someone else's properry. Even if you are in the right, I don't see the litigation hassle as worthwhile.
Good high power blasts of sea water might send the a message, and shorten the life of the components.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

If you have an SSB or HAM radio on board, keying the transmitter at high power might fry the electronics if the thing is close enough. Those receivers are sized to deal with microwatts of radio energy. Dumping milliwatts into the circuit might scramble them.

I'm am by no means an expert. I doubt they operate on anyplace close to the same frequency, CPS if that tells you how current I am. Maybe picking up a harmonic? Or just plan blasting it? I doubt they would even see SSB since there is no carrier, as I recall and the drones are probably AM?


Now tell me how dumb I am, I might learn something?

[Terra Nova]

This might interest some.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2itwFJCgFQ

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

And maybe 2hullvenus is an energy sink, someone who really wants some attention, rather than a solution to the problem... Ten pages now, a number of non-warlike solutions offered, no mention of taking up any of them....

Seems to me that if my anchorage became unpleasant to me for some reason, I'd move. Why did he not do that? according to his post, there is anchorage nearby.

Ann

Ann,
What I think you're missing is that 2Hulls is an exceptional person with an exceptional boat. Above he states very clearly, "Guys, my boat is on par (outside anyway) with some of the best in the world.

It's an attention getter.

People filmed me all the way here from up north.

Mega yacht crews dropped what they were doing to watch the boat.

Hundreds of thumbs up."

These are not things that can be easily dismissed. Many of the above remarks are goals, desires and dreams that people have worked for their entire lives and have never been able to attain. And, this reverence for his boat is not an isolated occurrence during his time spent in Florida, but rather spans the length and breadth of the entire US from the North to perhaps, in the near future, the Bahamas, the Caribbean and ultimately the world. So, when an unwanted intruder spies on an individual of this caliber and with a boat that is an unrestrained fantasy of most on this Forum, we should take note. May I be the first to apologize for Ann to our friend, idol and inspiration--Mr. TwoHulls. We should all make an effort in the future to consider these factors before commenting on any of his enlightening posts with anything that even breaches the standards of respect for such a supernal individual. May I be the first to offer my thanks and humble respect. Sincerely . . . Capt. Rognvald

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Cadence

I'm am by no means an expert. I doubt they operate on anyplace close to the same frequency, CPS if that tells you how current I am. Maybe picking up a harmonic? Or just plan blasting it? I doubt they would even see SSB since there is no carrier, as I recall and the drones are probably AM?


Now tell me how dumb I am, I might learn something?

I don't know enough about electronics to explain why, but I know for example many of the more electronically sophisticated full size aircraft cannot get near an Aircraft Carrier, apparently that thing puts out enough RF so that the on board electronics go bat crazy. Electronics that are not radios, but computers and the like.
Assumption is of course that Naval aircraft are "hardened" to not have this type of interference.
US Army Blackhawk killed several until it was determined that the Stabalator was susceptible to RF.
We used to call them "Lawn Darts" for their tendency to be flying along fast and low, to suddenly nose into the ground

http://articles.philly.com/1987-11-0...-citizens-band

The joke poster of the time was of a Panamanian Air Defense unit, consisted of soldiers standing in formation holding garage door openers

On edit, if you can shoot down a Blackhawk with a CB, you might can shoot down a drone with an SSB

[crabcake]

Originally Posted by 2hullvenus

Nah, it's settled.

The operator got a message that I was displeased with the surveillance when I flipped it off, filmed it and threw a bottle at it.

Next step in any escalation is a silent but deadly one...the jammer.

You can't follow it home folks. It lives behind trees somewhere.

And yes, Dorklancey... I have no idea how to sail. Definitely. No experience or credentials. Never made a passage in my life. Just stuck in one place here in NY. Oh wait... no...that's you.

http://www.qrz.ru/schemes/contribute...one-jammer.pdf

[Delancey]

Mea culpa and apologies to those who, like myself, have difficulty seeing or thinking "2hullsvenus" without substituting the rhyming word I alluded to earlier. Just can't get it out of my head now. Sorry.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I don't know enough about electronics to explain why, but I know for example many of the more electronically sophisticated full size aircraft cannot get near an Aircraft Carrier, apparently that thing puts out enough RF so that the on board electronics go bat crazy. Electronics that are not radios, but computers and the like.
Assumption is of course that Naval aircraft are "hardened" to not have this type of interference.
US Army Blackhawk killed several until it was determined that the Stabalator was susceptible to RF.
We used to call them "Lawn Darts" for their tendency to be flying along fast and low, to suddenly nose into the ground

Army Copters Vulnerable To Radio Waves - philly-archives

The joke poster of the time was of a Panamanian Air Defense unit, consisted of soldiers standing in formation holding garage door openers

On edit, if you can shoot down a Blackhawk with a CB, you might can shoot down a drone with an SSB

I was hoping a knowledge HAM would chime in. If as you say, CB is Am or SSB. I liked the SSB. Didn't have all the good buddy chatter and I liked catching skips or telling the wife I was running late from 40 or more miles away. I would think aircraft would be well shielded and only receive a narrow band width?